Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs

From	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs
Date	2016-02-03 18:00 +0100
Message-ID	<qY8WC-4vK-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qXWC5-4X7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qXWC5-4X7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qY4Jl-1TE-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <qY8jV-4ft-45@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Paul Burton wrote:

> >  Hmm, this looks like a fatal error condition to me, the module won't 
> > load.  Why `pr_warn' rather than `pr_err' then?  Likewise in the other 
> > file.
> 
> To me fatality implies death, and nothing dies here. The module isn't
> loaded but that's done gracefully & is not likely due to an error in the
> kernel - it's far more likely that the module isn't valid. So to me,
> warning seems appropriate rather than implying an error in the kernel.

 It may be bikeshedding, however these levels affect what goes to syslog 
and the console.  There are `crit', `alert' and `emerg' levels above, to 
raise more severe conditions.  As to `warn' I'd expect one on a succesful 
action made with some limitations, e.g. a compatibility mode of some kind, 
running with a performance limitation, some functionality disabled, etc.  
There's also `notice', which is lower, I'd use for normal actions that 
might require operator's attention, e.g. I'd put switching a network 
interface into the promiscuous mode there, due to its side effect on 
overall system performance.

 And I don't think it has to be a bug in the kernel to raise an `err' 
condition.  However I do agree the boundary here may be a bit fuzzy and 
code you've been changing doesn't seem consistent either.

 FWIW,

  Maciej

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com> - 2016-02-03 04:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com> - 2016-02-03 13:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com> - 2016-02-03 13:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com> - 2016-02-03 17:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com> - 2016-02-03 18:00 +0100

csiph-web